1John 5:20

by PSacramento 14 Replies latest watchtower bible

PSacramento

This was brought up in the Phillipians thread by Johnathan Dough (SP?), he mentions how in 1John 5:20 Jesus is caled God.
Now, in the NIV it goes like this:
verse 19- We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil One.
verse 20 - We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding. so that we may know him who is true. And we are in Him who is true-even in his son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and Eternal Life.
First Comment: I never cared for passages that contridict, or seem to, basic doctrine and verse 19 does that when it says that the whole world is under control of the evil one ( I think that SWAY is a better translation or LIES in the power). The whole world, heaven and earth are under the authority of Jesus, this is clearly stated in Matthew and elsewhere, at best the evil one can "sway" or "influence" but he has no control.
That said, its verse 20 that seems to voice that Jesus is God, but to be trutful, when I first read it, it seemed to me to say:
Jesus has given us the understanding of God and God is the true God and Eternal Life.
Now, Jesus has been called "eternal life" himself or at least the path to eternal life, though I think John in his Gospel says that Jesus is eternal life (paraphrasing).
Thoughts?
cameo-d

It is said that Jesus was obedient to the law and the commandments.
If this is so, it hardly seems he would have called himself god or son of god as that could be misconstrued as usurping the first commandment of having "no other gods".
If Jesus appears as god or as the son of god, it is only because others are promoting this.
If someone calls me an angel, does that mean I am actually an extraterrestrial?
PSacramento

cameo-d,
Jesus referred to himself as the Son of God in John in a indirect way, whn he speaks in the "3rd person" about himself.
He even says that it was the Father that Sent Him and testifies about Him, that he is the bread that came down from heaven, He also says he came from God, He says that He and the father are one ( To which the jews picked up stones to stone him), of course John 10:36 Jesus askes why they wanna stone him because he said he was the son of God, and more after that.
Mary also calls him the son of God and he doesn't rebuke her.
glenster

"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so
that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son
Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." (New American Standard
Bible)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_American_Standard_Bible

The basic mainstream view would understand the Son as God's own wisdom, not
as a seperate created being, personified and sent to people, so that being in
the Son is being in God more than just the case of followers joining the mes-
sanger Michael in unity of abidance to God. It would make more of the
parallel that being in the Father is being in the Son, and that being in them
is being in God and not just joining an archangel in abidance to God.

The mainstream view would emphasize that sons are typically same quality
beings as fathers and the JWs leaders would emphasize that sons are typically
seperate beings from Fathers. You'd have to go over more than these few
things, but I think the mainstream view has a stronger case for an only Son,
"the" Son, in that he would be the only one called Son who was like that
whereas "arch" just means "chief" angel, and other angels are called sons of
God. First cent. Judaism had more than one archangel, too.

I think the basic mainstream view has the stronger case generally than the
JWs leaders for having the originally intended view, but I can imagine how
either view would interpret that verse or "Son of God." But if I were the
editor and needed to have people think of the JWs leaders' view and avoid
thinking of the mainstream view, I would have avoided the parallels possible
with a verse like that or the phrase "Son of God" and would have used "God
sent archangel Michael, whom we agree about God with," among a lot of other
things.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/
Narkissos

There is often a strong verbal connection between the Gospel and the first epistle "of John," to the point that one frequently seems like a rewriting of the other. Compare
GJ 17:3: And this is eternal life (aiônios zoè),that they mayknow (hina ginôskôsin)you, the only true God (ton monon alèthinon theon), and Jesus Christ (Ièsous Khriston) whom you have sent. (Rather odd btw for Jesus to call himself Jesus Christ in 3rd person, especially in prayer, but never mind.)
with
1J 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding so that we may know (hina ginôskômen)him who is true (ton alèthinon); and we are in him who is true (en tô alèthinô),in his Son Jesus Christ (en tô huiô autou Ièsou Khristou). He (literally, this one, houtos) is the true God (ho alèthinos theos) and eternal life (zoè aiônos).
Strict grammar would require that the demonstrative houtos (this one, masculine => personal, vs. ekeinos, that one) refers to the last person mentioned, i.e. Jesus Christ. But Johannine syntax is not always that strict and there is room for doubt about what the exact referent is (plus, 1 John often uses ekeinos, "that one," alone, as a stereotyped reference to Christ; 2:6; 3.3,5,7,16; 4.17; 5.16). But I feel this grammatical issue hardly affects the general meaning of the text. The point is, "the true God" (opposed to "idols" in v. 21) is that which the Johannine community ("we") already knowsthrough Jesus Christ, in which it already is, and such knowledge and indwelling (being "in" God-Jesus) is eternal life.
The whole thrust of Johannine thought is that knowing Jesus is knowing God is knowing the truth is eternal life so to say. That's the 'forest' which is easily missed in a discussion about the demonstrative 'tree'. Even if "this one" was meant to refer to "the true one," Jesus is an integral part of that referent.
Deputy Dog

PS
Now, Jesus has been called "eternal life" himself or at least the path to eternal life, though I think John in his Gospel says that Jesus is eternal life (paraphrasing).
He even says that it was the Father that Sent Him and testifies about Him, that he is the bread that came down from heaven, He also says he came from God, He says that He and the father are one ( To which the jews picked up stones to stone him), of course John 10:36 Jesus askes why they wanna stone him because he said he was the son of God, and more after that.
Your touching on my point with the JWs How are they going to eat what came down, if they don't know what it is? They want to say nothing came down.
Watkins

P-Sacramento - yes, I agree with your thoughts - "God" is the subject matter of those sentences, as Jesus gives us the understanding of the true God - "so that we may know him who is true. And we are in Him who is true-even in his son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and Eternal Life." So 'him who is true' is God, Jesus' Father - and the last part of vs 20 is re-emphasizing that statement - not, as some wish to read into it, that Jesus is the True God mentioned. I've tried hard to wrap my mind around the trinty as explained to me by sincere people - but I'm not getting anywhere since they try to make the scriptures they point to seem to say that Jesus is the Father God... it's one of those things, I think, that if you want to believe it you just believe it without much proof... I don't know...
cameo-d - Your statements made me scratch my head - where are you getting the idea that Jesus was not the Son of God or never called himself that? His Father even called him His Son - so what is your scriptural objection to that title?

Matthew 16:16
Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
Luke 1:32
"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David;

Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, " The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 22:70
And they all said, "Are You the Son of God, then?" And He said to them, " Yes, I am."
John 3:18
" He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:17-19 (in Context) John 3 (Whole Chapter)
John 3:36
"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
John 5:25
"Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
- those are just a few of many examples -
watkins
Piercingtheveil81

I think what cameo-d is saying is that it was others who were promoting this idea, hence the reason for it found in the gospel writings. I personally believe this to be the case. Since there can not be any other god who for example participates in creation, forgives sins and grants salvation, and recieves glory, since this is in direct conflict with the OT regarding there being only one God who does not share such things with His creation.
jonathan dough

Watkins wrote: I've tried hard to wrap my mind around the trinty as explained to me by sincere people - but I'm not getting anywhere since they try to make the scriptures they point to seem to say that Jesus is the Father God... it's one of those things, I think, that if you want to believe it you just believe it without much proof... I don't know...
Reply: First, try this explanation of the Trinity: http://144000.110mb.com/trinity/index.html
Second, Trinitarians do not believe that the creature Jesus, the created humanity, is God Almighty, the Father. Until everyone understands this basic principle they will get nowhere on this issue. Therefore, the creature Jesus could pray to His Father as he was/is not the Father.
Third, when talking about the Son of God you are not distinguishing between immanent and economic trinity, nor do you discuss the God-man nature of Jesus. The "Son of God" usually refers to the Divine Person of Jesus, the Word, not the creature. Jesus the creature who is not God did not become God's Son at birth. Give the web site a serious try - many citations, not just me talking. Jesus Christ was/is a divine person who assumed a human nature. The Trinity doctrine is very logical and understandible, even if grounded on a measure of faith. But then, one has to have faith to believe in the resurrection of the dead, right?
JD II
glenster

"...it hardly seems he would have called himself god or son of god as that
could be misconstrued as usurping the first commandment of having 'no other
gods'".

In that culture, "son of god" could be angel (Job 1:6). Other things could
indicate God's own wisdom personified and sent to people, as in the intertesta-
ment Wisdom literature. The phrase wouldn't be off limits, but rocks would be
hurled if they thought Jesus meant the latter version and didn't believe he was.
By the mainstream view, that's why Jesus was threatened with rocks yet he didn't
say he was archangel Michael to get them to put down the rocks.

Also see the section on "Prayer and worship" most of the way down the next
page, which indicates they were going on for Jesus pretty early, and were a
couple of the main ways people indicated belief in God in first cent. Judaism.
http://gtw6437.tripod.com/id22.html

Stephen didn't say he believed Jesus was an angel in human form to save his
life when he was put to trial, dragged across town, and stoned to death, either.
They didn't have a rule to stone you to death for seeing an angel. He prayed to Jesus.

1John 5:20

Share this